Can a government be considered in rebellion against a nation’s laws and its established order?

That is the bizarre situation we find ourselves in. There is no shot fired at Fort Sumter. Instead a million conspirators tear apart and remake the system in countless ways on a daily basis while the leadership remains in open rebellion of the laws that it is obligated to abide by and enforce.

This is as good as any analysis and understanding that I have seen of what's happening. Read it all. It says what so many of us are thinking. We are already in a civil war. But the Republicans are still playing by rules despite the Democrats rejection of American law, as magnificent a system that has ever been created and instituted by any nation in human history. We are witnessing, with incredulity and horror, the American system of governance steamrolled by looters, moochers and destroyers.

The Supersessionists of the Liberal Confederacy Daniel Greeenfield

The battle between Obama and the Republicans is a sad and pitiful contest for the same reason that a baseball game in which one side plays by the rules and the other one races the bases in motorcycles and shoots the balls over the fence with an RPG.

Ted Cruz has come the closest to understanding that the other side just doesn’t play by any rules, but lacks the leverage to make much of that. Cruz is still a product of a system in which there are rules. And that system is as unfit for challenging the left-wing radicals running things as trying to play a game of chess against an opponent who feels like moving the pieces any which way he feels like and always claims to have won.

Law is a consensus. If you stop keeping the law, the police arrest you. If a gang of left-wing radicals in a basement somewhere stopped following the law, they might be locked up. It’s not a certain thing considering that mad bomber Bill Ayers is a university professor. But once those same left-wing radicals control much of the system and the media that reports on the system, they have no reason to follow the law.

Political factions agree to follow the law for mutual benefit. The Constitution had to be agreed upon by just about everyone. The left-wing radicals in Rhode Island who were making everyone pledge allegiance to their worthless paper currency while threatening to nationalize everything refused and had to be forced in with threats of military intervention and trade embargoes.

But in the end they got the last laugh.

The United States has never really had full-bore left-wing radicals running it before. It does now.

Media outlets breathlessly report on Tea Party radicalism, which consists of wanting to undo the judicial activism of the last century. Meanwhile Obama and his cronies just ignore any law they don’t like and rule by fiat.

Which of these is more radical? The Tea Party activists who would like to revisit the debate over the Tenth Amendment or an administration that does anything it pleases and challenges an impotent judiciary and an even more impotent legislature to stand in its way?

The Tea Party activists would like to revise American legal history. Their left-wing opponents sweep the whole thing off the table. The Tea Party would like the system to abide by the letter of its legal covenants while their left-wing opponents have “modernized” them by judicial fiat and disregarded them by executive fiat.

The only laws that Obama will follow are those that allow him to do what he wants to do anyway. Like the Caliph who conquered Egypt and declared that if the Library of Alexandria should be burned because if its books contradicted the Koran they were heretical and if they agreed with it they were blasphemous, the entire American system, its laws and regulations, are at best supplementary.

Law is a consensus. But the left rejects that consensus. It subjects each law to an ideological test. If the law meets the ideological test, which is based on social justice criteria entirely foreign to the American legal system, and the practical test of furthering social justice, it can stay. If not, then it will either be struck down or disregarded. They have applied that same ideological test to the nation as a whole and decided that the existence of the United States does not meet their ideological tests.

Political factions in the past may have engaged in bare-knuckle political hostilities but they all agreed that the United States in its past, present and future forms was the proper arena for their disputes and that the maintenance of an objective system of laws was the best way to ensure its perpetuation. When that consensus broke down, a civil war resulted. Now the consensus is in even worse tatters.

It’s not the Tea Party that is the new Confederacy, as popular a media talking point as that may be. The new threat isn’t secessionist, but supersessionist. The new Confederacy isn’t out to break up the Union into territorial slices, but to replace the Union with a new and different Union. Call it the Confederacy of the Community Organizers, the War between the Unions or the Supersession War.

The Supersessionist rebels insist that the Constitution and the old order were superseded a long time ago by the march of history. And the only reason that we don’t call them rebels is because they are in control of almost the entire system of government.

Can a government be considered in rebellion against a nation’s laws and its established order? That is the bizarre situation we find ourselves in. There is no shot fired at Fort Sumter. Instead a million conspirators tear apart and remake the system in countless ways on a daily basis while the leadership remains in open rebellion of the laws that it is obligated to abide by and enforce.

Obama and the Republicans are fighting a civil war which only the Supersessionists of the Liberal Confederacy fully understand.

The Republicans, who for the most part are about as radical as a three-piece suit, are fighting to maintain a consensus in which everyone follows the law and settles their disagreements by hammering out a compromise that keeps the system going. And their opponents disregard the consensus and the system and go on doing what they want while defying anyone to stop them.

You could call it political civil disobedience, the left would certainly like to when dealing with the administration’s radical lawbreaking on immigration or gay marriage, but civil disobedience applies to the civil population, not to their government. Government disobedience isn’t noble or virtuous. The rebellion of governments against the laws they are obligated to enforce is self-righteous tyranny.

A government in rebellion against the laws is one that asserts that no power, not that of tradition, of the legal covenants that brought the system into being or even the previous votes of the people, is superior to it. That is why the rebellion of the supersessionists is far worse than the rebellions of secessionists. Both the secessionists and the supersessionists reject the consensus, but only the supersessionists insist on forcing a new system of their own making in place of the old consensus.

The unequal contest places liberal rebels looking to trash the system from the top against conservative defenders of an old order fighting from the bottom. The old Nixon vs. Hippies match-up has been flipped over. Nixon is in the crowd of protesters against government abuse and the hippies are laughing at him from the White House. The counterculture has become the culture, but still acts like it’s the counterculture even when it’s running everything.

On one side there is no consensus and no law; only sheer will. On the other there is a body of legal traditions going back centuries.

It’s painfully clear that two such approaches cannot coexist within a single government. And those who have the power and follow no rules have the supreme advantage of wielding government power without the legal restrictions that were meant to bind the abuse of that power.

The Republicans are struggling to find common ground over a mutual respect for the system where none exists. Like any totalitarian radicals, their opponents regard their concern for legalism with contempt.

The radical does not respect process, only outcome. He holds law in contempt, but respects will. While the Republicans debate process, the Democrats steamroll them by focusing only on outcome. Where there is no consensus, then process does not matter. The Democrats treat process as a fiction when it comes to ObamaCare or immigration. And the Republicans struggle to understand why no one holds them accountable without understanding that accountability is also an aspect of process.

The radicalization of the Democratic Party is slowly leading to a counterpart radicalism in the Republican Party. The process is moving far slower because of the vested interests in the way, but every time the radicals of the left displays their contempt for the consensus, they are paving the way for the rise of a Republican Party whose members are more like Ted Cruz than John McCain.

What radicals never understand is that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. The process of the consensus exists to safeguard both sides and prevent political battles from spinning out of control. Democrats, under the influence of the radical left, have decided that they can unilaterally transform the country by acting as if the consensus and the process don’t bind them. They have not considered what will happen when a Republican Party that has as much resemblance to its present day leaders as Barack Obama does to Hubert Humphrey makes that same decision.

Liberal supersessionists claim to be worried about conservative secessionists when they should be far more worried about conservative supersessionists. The consensus we all live by is a fragile thing. It is being torn apart by the radical left and once it is destroyed, it will not bind the right, in the same way that it no longer binds the left.

Thursday, May 9

A key Benghazi whistle-blower, responding to Democratic claims that the prolonged scrutiny over the administration's botched talking points is unwarranted, testified Wednesday that the early mischaracterization of the attack may have actually hurt the FBI's investigation. "I definitely believe that it negatively affected our ability to get the FBI team quickly to Benghazi," said Greg Hicks, the deputy chief of mission in Libya who became the top U.S. diplomat in the country after Ambassador Chris Stevens was killed. He claimed the Libyan president was angered by the mischaracterization, in turn slowing the U.S. probe. The claim was one of several new accounts given at Wednesday's high-profile hearing where three whistle-blowers testified. Democrats, while giving deference to the officials and their version of events, used the hearing to try and deflect criticism away from the administration. In particular, they rejected the notion that early talking points on the attack were deliberately changed, to downplay terrorism, for political reasons. "People who have actually seen the documents, who have actually conducted a real investigation completely reject the allegation that they were made for political purposes," Rep. John Tierney, D-Mass., said. But the substance of the claims Wednesday could serve to re-open questions about that deadly night -- and specifically about the initial claim by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice that the attack was triggered by a protest over an anti-Islam film. "I think the American people learned today ... the facts as we were told before, during and after Benghazi simply aren't as they were," Rep. Darrell Issa, chairman of the oversight committee holding the hearing, said.'I definitely believe that it negatively affected our ability to get the FBI team quickly to Benghazi.'- Greg Hicks, former deputy chief of mission in LibyaHicks was asked to respond to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's statement at a prior hearing asking "what difference" do the questions over the talking points make. Hicks argued that Rice's comments so insulted the Libyan president -- since they contradicted his Sept. 16 claims that the attack was premeditated -- that it slowed the FBI's investigation. "President Magariaf was insulted in front of his own people, in front of the world. His credibility was reduced," Hicks said, adding that the president was apparently "still steamed" two weeks later. This bad blood, he claimed, contributed to the FBI team being stuck in Tripoli for about 17 days. He added that the U.S. could not even get the Libyans to secure the crime scene during that time. As for Rice's comments that Sunday, when she repeatedly cited the video as the trigger for the attack, Hicks said his "jaw dropped" when he heard that. "I was stunned," Hicks said. "My jaw dropped, and I was embarrassed." He said Rice never talked to him before those appearances. Hicks said the only information coming out of his team was that there was an "attack" on the consulate. "The YouTube video was a non-event in Libya," he said. He also claimed that, when he asked a superior about the interviews, he was told "he should not proceed" with his questions. He was later given a "blistering critique" of his management style and effectively demoted to "desk officer," he claimed. Hicks' testimony marked some of the most detailed of any delivered Wednesday. He and others also suggested the State Department's internal review into the attack was lacking. Hicks said when he was interviewed by the group, a stenographer was not present. In hours of testimony, the witnesses recounted in great detail what happened in eastern Libya on Sept. 11 and how U.S. personnel came under a series of attacks that left four Americans dead. Though Democratic officials have argued the attack has been thoroughly investigated and that the hearing Wednesday was political in nature, the claims challenged several long-standing assertions by the Obama administration. The witnesses criticized the lax security at the Benghazi site in the run-up to the attack, and suggested the military did not do all it good to respond to the scene that night despite claims to the contrary. Hicks also revealed that it appeared some were trying to lure even more U.S. personnel into a separate "ambush" while the attack was still being carried out. He described how, as diplomatic officials were trying to find out what happened to Stevens, they were receiving phone calls from supposed tipsters saying they knew where the ambassador was and urging Americans to come get him. "We suspected that we were being baited into a trap," Hicks said, adding that he did not want to send anybody into what he suspected was an "ambush." Getting choked up, Hicks described how the Libyan prime minister later called him to tell him Stevens was in fact dead. "I think it's the saddest phone call I've ever had in my life," he said. At the very beginning of the attack, before Stevens went missing and was later found dead, Hicks said his team believed it was terrorism. He said a regional security officer rushed into his villa yelling, "Greg, Greg, the consulate's under attack." He then spoke by phone with Stevens who told him the same: "Greg, we're under attack." After enduring a night of attacks on the U.S. consulate, Hicks said the team departed at dawn for the nearby annex -- shortly after they arrived, "the mortars came." Another whistle-blower questioned Wednesday why more military assets were not deployed sooner during the Benghazi terror attack. Mark Thompson, a former Marine and official with the State Department's Counterterrorism Bureau, said he was rebuffed by the White House when he asked for a specialized team -- known as a FEST team -- to be deployed. This is a unit made of special operations personnel, diplomatic security, intelligence and other officers. Suggesting that some were hesitant to deploy because they were unsure what was happening, "One definition of a crisis is you do not know what's going to happen in two hours," he said. Further, Hicks explained how a separate team of special forces personnel were not given the authorization to fly from Tripoli to Benghazi. "They were furious," he said. Issa defended the witnesses, calling them "actual experts on what really happened before, during and after the Benghazi attacks," who "deserve to be heard." The three witnesses were Hicks, Thompson and Eric Nordstrom, a diplomatic security officer who was formerly the regional security officer in Libya; and Thompson. "I am a career public servant," Hicks said. "Until the aftermath of Benghazi, I loved every day of my job." Nordstrom choked up as he began to testify Wednesday. Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., top Democrat on the oversight committee, said Wednesday that Republicans are using the witnesses' statements for "political purposes." He said he's glad the whistle-blowers are testifying and would ensure they are protected, but pre-emptively challenged some of their claims -- including the claim that U.S. military could have responded sooner to the site of the attack. The Obama administration has adamantly denied several of the latest charges, including a claim that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and a key aide tried to cut the department's own counterterrorism bureau out of the chain of reporting and decision-making on Sept. 11. The administration also denied that the whistle-blowers in question were intimidated -- while behind the scenes questioning the credibility of the witnesses. A "fact sheet" released by the department ahead of the hearing reiterated its denials. The statement said the department has "demonstrated an unprecedented degree of cooperation with the Congress" on Libya, and rejected claims that the military was in a position to help that night but was told to stand down. Citing its internal review, the statement noted the review "found no evidence of any undue delays in decision making or denial of support from Washington or from the military combatant commanders."

Wednesday, April 10

Burton Folsom is Charles Kline professor of history and management at Hillsdale College. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Pittsburgh, and he is the author of seven books, including The Myth of the Robber Barons, and New Deal or Raw Deal? His most recent book is FDR Goes to War, which he co-authored with his wife Anita.

Monday, April 1

Most of the time I feel sad.
I do get relief when I look at the big picture. One day he will be out of there.

Did you get a chance to read about your President?
Probably not, due to the lock-Step Media.
I can't quite remember that special guy that said "I have a dream" I was still very young.
Something about judging a man by his content ofCHARACTERnot by his color of skin...
What is your president doing anyway???

Sometimes, that perception cuts to the core. Like when President George W. Bush stopped playing golf in 2003, at the height of the Iraq War.

“I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal,” he said years later. “I don’t want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the commander in chief playing golf. I feel I owe it to the families to be in solidarity as best as I can with them.”

That’s also why Mr. Bush did two other things, without fanfare or praise. First, he never headed home to his Texas ranch until after Christmas, instead going to Camp David for a few days. That way, the hundreds of people revolving around him at all times — White House staff, Secret Service agents, reporters, photographers, all the others — could spend the holiday with their families in and around Washington, D.C. No one ever reported that — until this column.

Second, he rarely attended sporting events, although he once owned a baseball team and was a self-confessed stats junkie. His thinking there was the same: If he went to a baseball game (right down the street from the White House), his mere presence would mean hours and hours of extra security for fans. He once stopped off at the Daytona 500 and the metal detectors through which every fan had to pass left thousands outside in line when the green flag fell; he didn’t attend many sporting events after that.

But something remarkable has happened with these occupants of the White House: Neither President Obama nor first lady Michelle appear to give a damn about perception. They won the White House and, by God, they’re going to enjoy their time there, no matter the cost. And who cares what you think, anyway?

How else to explain the nonstop vacations the pair keep taking during what Mr. Obama calls the “worst financial crisis since the Great Depression”? In 2013, the First Family has already enjoyed three vacations — that’s one a month. (Sorry, Joe America, you might have to forget your week at the beach again this year, but make sure you get those taxes in on time!)

The Obamas ended 2012 and kicked off 2013 in an $8 million, 6,000-square-foot house in Hawaii (they left well before Dec. 25, by the way). There, the president played five rounds of golf (breaking the 100-rounds-as-president threshold). Scarcely a month into Term 2, Mrs. Obama headed off for Aspen, taking along the couple’s daughters. Vice President Joseph R. Biden also hit the Colorado slopes. While the girls (and Joe) were gone, Mr. Obama nipped down to Florida for a four-day boys weekend of golf, teeing it up with his buddies — and Tiger Woods. He hit the links again this weekend, then dropped in for an NCAA tournament game in Washington.

Jumpin’ Joe, for his part, spent New Year’s in the Virgin Islands and popped off over the Easter weekend for a golf outing at the glorious Kiawah Island, S.C. (where rounds of golf on the spectacular Ocean Course run $353 — nearly $20 a hole). His third vacation of the year came the same week as reports that he and his entourage spent $460,000 for a single night in London and $585,000 for a night at a five-star hotel in Paris.

Then, last week, reports emerged that the Obama girls were kicking it in the Bahamas for spring break. Days later, a Colorado news station, KMTV, reported that the girls were now skiing in Sun Valley, Idaho. The White House flacks didn’t like that one bit.

Got Character?
Character is:

Trustworthiness

Be honest • Don’t deceive, cheat, or steal • Be reliable — do what you say you’ll do • Have the courage to do the right thing • Build a good reputation • Be loyal — stand by your family, friends, and country

Respect

Treat others with respect; follow the Golden Rule • Be tolerant and accepting of differences • Use good manners, not bad language • Be considerate of the feelings of others • Don’t threaten, hit or hurt anyone • Deal peacefully with anger, insults, and disagreements

Responsibility

Do what you are supposed to do • Plan ahead • Persevere: keep on trying! • Always do your best • Use self-control • Be self-disciplined • Think before you act — consider the consequences • Be accountable for your words, actions, and attitudes • Set a good example for others

Fairness

Play by the rules • Take turns and share • Be open-minded; listen to others • Don’t take advantage of others • Don’t blame others carelessly • Treat all people fairly

Caring

Be kind • Be compassionate and show you care • Express gratitude • Forgive others • Help people in need

Citizenship

Do your share to make your school and community better • Cooperate • Get involved in community affairs • Stay informed; vote • Be a good neighbor • Obey laws and rules • Respect authority • Protect the environment • Volunteer

Monday, February 11

Ronald Reagan

Are we Crazy? or Politically Correct? or both?

Congress is set to give legally protected status to 30 sexual orientations, including incest. Because of pressure from homosexual groups, Congress has refused to define what is meant by sexual orientation in H.R. 1913, the "Hate Crimes" bill. This means that the 30 different sexual orientations will be federally protected classes.

To see the orientations that will be protected by the Hate Crimes bill (H.R. 1913), click here.

You may be told this information is incorrect. If so, ask why then did the House Judiciary Committee refuse to define "sexual orientation?"

* VIDEO: Why is Govenor Spencer of Greensboro, NC walking around free today? Unable to control himself when he crashed a peaceful, Tea Party Protest, he pushes a woman and then punches her husband, Nathan Tabor, in the face – all caught on video

Why does your Government keep getting it wrong?

Don't Tax Me BRO!

In 2004 Video Unearthed Democrats in their own words Covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Scam

You must let the Government plunder your goods!

The silent majority

Our own freedom and the American dream.

http://www.american-quotes.com/---Our own freedom and growth have never been the final goalof the American dream. We were never meant to be an oasis ofliberty and abundance in a worldwide desert of disappointed dreams.Our Nation was created to help strike away the chains of ignorance andmisery and tyranny wherever they keep man less than God wants him to be.---Lyndon B. Johnson

Climategate - To be Gored...

A leading Israeli scientist has renounced the concept of man-made global warming at a lecture given to the British Technion Society, just days before world leaders meet to discuss ways to halt it.Professor Giora Shaviv, professor of physics at the Technion, claimed that the accepted level of carbon dioxide in the air is wildly exaggerated.Prof Shaviv said that though for years the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has claimed that an increase in carbon dioxide has led to an increase in temperature, in fact, the reverse is correct.He argued that the movement of the sun affects temperature, which influences the levels of carbon dioxide, and that these levels have risen and fallen for centuries, even before mankind.He said: “CO2 is not responsible for heating the earth, the cause is the activity of the sun which we cannot control.“However we are responsible for our environment on earth, for the future of our grandchildren, and therefore, we should all still act responsibly.”The lecture was attended by Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which was set up by former Chancellor of the Exchequer Lord Lawson to analyse global warming policies and its economic implications.Dr Peiser, who was born in Haifa, said that too much money was being ploughed into climate change research and that politicians were stifling contentious research that opposed the commonly accepted views.He said: “People talk about saving the world but no one crunches the figures. It has become an obsession and economic burden for many countries.“There is a hysteria and exaggeration of the issue with people worrying that the end is nigh. People need to calm down. The reality is we haven’t got a clear idea what the climate is doing.“Part of our agenda is that scientists like Professor Shaviv have to be allowed to research freely and without political pressure.”Sourcehttp://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/24568/israeli-scientist-denies-global-warming

Climategate: This time Al Gore lied - Think Mental Illness

Lier Lier, Pants on fire

Don't be dumb... All scientists know Climate change is caused by WATER VAPOR

Obama is the grand leader of the whole world

Record Lies in Record Time - 7 lies in under 2 minutes.

I think this is a new world's record for a dirty, lying politician. Wow. Not one element of truth in there. Not one. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

Do any Americans even care?

Obama Obama

And He is now our President... Some facts are blury but acurate

I bet he will not eat them - green eggs and ham.

You know the President is telling a lie when he says something like this.
"I hope we can build on the progress we made at last year's G20 summits by coordinating our global financial reform efforts to make sure a crisis like the one
from which we are still recovering never happens again," he said on June 25th 2010.

O'Reilly Blasts Barney Frank On Fannie Mae Mess!... Dumb Ass

Barnie Barnie Barnie

Karl Rove - "Chris Dodd & Barney Frank Prevented Mortgage Reform"

The UN sucks your money up, up and away. $5,000,000,000 Yes That's "Billion" just last year.